Members debated the advantages and disadvantages of applying sooner rather than later. One participant argued that early submission could offer strategic benefits, as reflected in a suggestion to “give it a shot,” implying that being proactive might enhance their chances. However, opposing viewpoints highlighted the potential benefits of waiting until the town meeting for a more solidified application.

The timing of the application coincided with a challenging schedule, requiring all necessary documents to be ready by the select board’s meeting on November 26. One member expressed concern about their unavailability during the critical days leading up to the deadline, emphasizing the need for others to step in. This led to a proposal to use a Google Drive folder to consolidate and manage the required materials, with a member stating, “We can definitely do that… just make it public,” to ensure transparency and collaboration.

As part of their efforts to meet the grant application requirements, the committee discussed the importance of gathering documentation to confirm the committee’s existence and fulfill eligibility criteria. Suggestions were made to utilize the Massachusetts Energy Insight platform and other resources to compile the necessary information. Despite progress in organizing these documents, members acknowledged the need for additional data, particularly concerning net zero and carbon standards.

While the grant application dominated much of the discussion, the meeting also touched on other topics. The committee reviewed updates on the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) process. A member provided a status report, explaining that delays persisted due to ongoing discussions with the Department of Public Utilities over which aggregation plan template to use. The Colonial Power Group’s attorney was involved, and it was conveyed that once the template decision was finalized, progress would likely accelerate.

The committee also addressed electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. A member shared insights from recent outreach efforts to neighboring towns about their EV charger applications. For instance, while some towns requested a modest two chargers, others like West Stockbridge sought twelve installations without clear justification. This led to concerns about the absence of a need assessment based on factors like local population or vehicle density.

The broader context of Massachusetts’ EV charging infrastructure was also examined, with data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicating that the state hosts over 3,200 charging locations, roughly 5% of the national total. Members discussed the implications of this data, particularly in light of the state’s reliance on natural gas for electricity generation, which sparked conversations about the environmental impact of EV initiatives.

In addition to infrastructure updates, members considered the format and organization of future meetings and potential engagement with representatives from other towns, such as Worthington. A suggestion was made to facilitate consistent questions across all vendors to streamline information gathering.

Towards the end of the meeting, the committee turned its attention to a recent email about educational resources in sustainability. There was debate over whether to include these resources on the committee’s website. While some members saw value in the links, others argued that such content might not align with the committee’s mission, emphasizing a preference for prioritizing local relevance over global educational opportunities.